Cancer-causing asbestos too dangerous for Parliament, but Canada gladly exports for profit

It is being removed from Canada’s public buildings, was banned by the European Union and caused Transport Minister Chuck Strahl’s lung cancer, but Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is defending asbestos exports. (The Star, Apr. 26, 2011)

So we know it is medically linked to a rare cancer of the lungs called mesothelioma, but Prime Minister Harper has no problem letting those with less knowledge of it, use it - India, for example.

Harper's attitude: Canada "will not put Canadian industry in a position where it is discriminated against in a market where sale is permitted." ("Canada's Shame...", Vancouver Sun, June 15)

What kind of message does this send to anyone, individuals, businesses, groups, society in general?! To this watcher, it is not an optimistic, helpful, healthy or caring message. It's one thing to present a product where people can make an educated decision on whether or not to use a product. In Canada, we are fortunate to a large extent to have access to reams of information about virtually anything, in addition to the warnings and news already circulating about dangerous materials like asbestos. In developing countries, crucial knowledge and life saving awareness is not as developed as here. So how ethical is it to export stuff that even Parliament Hill, and the Prime Minister's residence, has removed from their premises?

Should profit trump ethics? Is making a profit by any means equal to some sort of success or victory here? Is this how developed or "evolved" or civilized we are? In 2006 the Canadian government did not even want asbestos to be on a hazardous materials list under the United Nations treaty called the Rotterdam Convention.

The message could be, what they don't know won't hurt us .. only them. We should be proud, how progressive! This is one clue as to how Canada survived the recession. When it comes to profits of mining companies at least, let's not care about who buys asbestos, just as long as they buy.

Water logged

Freezing Reign

"Silver and gold"
Silver linings

What a week it's been in Canada and the world!

In Canadian politics, there is, again, a majority government where we should not expect another $300 million to be spent in 2-3 years on an election. Well, Stephen Harper has his majority so let's see what he can achieve with this. Let's hope there are plenty of positive policies, programs, initiatives and improvements for the social patchwork quilt of citizens.

This was a surprising election for several obvious reasons. Jack Layton's NDP got a whopping 102 seats, more than doubling his party's best showing ever, and the Liberals fell to an all-time low (34 seats). While Quebec gave the NDP the boost, they gave the sovergnists Bloc Quebecois the boots.

Basically the BQ got BBQued, with only 4 seats left at the table.

BQ leader Gilles Duceppe and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, stepped down, to allow a new face to try and breathe more oxygen into their party's respective bloodstreams. The seperatist Bloc party were left with barely a sign of life. It may not necessarily mean their long-term demise but at least it is a message from Quebecers that they are tired of the status quo, and being distant relatives in the Canadian family.

The NDP were on fire. Jack Layton, must have connected with lots of voters, and/or people just wanted a change. Even in Newfoundland & Labrador, we now have a second NDP MP - first time ever. In fact, even their candidates were very likely surprised, not to mention the voters in some ridings. Here's an example why: In the Quebec riding of Berthier-Maskinongé, 27 year old Ruth Anne Brosseau, vacationed in Vegas during the election. She obviously did not take it too seriously, especially since her riding is over 90% Francophone, and she does not speak French. There is currently a complaint about her nomination papers having fake names.

One other surprise is the youngest Canadian MP ever, the 19 year old New NDP member Pierre-Luc Dusseault, a second year pol-sci student. Click here for more detail about the new faces of the NDP.

While the country was changing it's political patchwork, the world got rid of it's most hated terrorist.

Last Sunday night was one of those "Where were you when you heard the news?" moments! It must have been an inkling of how people felt when in 1945 they heard that Hitler was dead. This monster is gone from the face of the earth. Unfortunately, there are still others who are still ignorant, extreme and hate-filled, who want nothing more than the destruction of almost anyone who does not share their misguided ideals. For now, their symbol is missing, and also the charismatic element that propelled the extreme message that their murderous group represents.

NDP leader realizes his Laytont potential

                              (This is my 6ooth blog post)

There is definitely a parallel thread between Obama breaking the black barrier in 2008, and the socialist NDP in Canada, breaking the traditionalist party barrier (and the NDP see and are using this in their own styled references).

For election after election, there is a complacency in the traditional power holders, Liberals and PC/Conservatives, about the NDP being nothing more than a pest in terms of getting elected to government. In the 2011 era, with more world knowledge than ever, with social media, and internet news, and of course, regular tv and radio reporting, the vibes of a nation may be perceived by the general populace, much sooner than backroom media coaches can be prepared for. It does not take much for people to pick up a vibe, and to have their political senses suddenly awakened, to tune in to the excitement of being part of a radical shift in social, traditional expected status quo elected party status. At this moment, with only 1 day till election day, there is a sliml possibility that the NDP will be the governing party of Canada.

How quickly views can change. There is a lesson to be learned here. Whether the NDP's surge in polls will be sustained and grows enough till May 2, there is the lesson that it could, and that traditional parties should not take traditional results for granted. At this moment the NDP are Not 3rd place anymore. They are 1st in Quebec polls, and in an IPSOS Reid poll conducted on Apr. 27, 45% of Canadians see Jack Layton as the best Prime Minister as opposed to Stephen Harper at 42%. Interesting!

There are plenty of interesting lines of interest here - What's happening so suddenly on Canada's political landscape? Why the current shift to Layton and the NDP? Is there a leap of political thought that skips a more gradual evolutionary stage of transitional shift from traditional party to a "chancey" socialist party?

Factors:

Well, today's political audience does not like to be told what to think, as in "The NDP are not ready to lead" (because of their inexperience in governing the country).

Jack Layton is a veteran, a political vetern.. even has a cane, which suggests injury... and an injury which is secondary to his commitment to country first.

Canadians are thinking, "hmm, so if you guys can call a 5th election in 7 years, then, let's play around with tradition.. and so let's see what the NDP can offer... especially, since we can get rid of a current government in a year, 2 or three anyway, if we don't like it... apparently.

In a social capture of gas prices rising, food prices rising, the fixed income populace (which is ever increasing) becoming a growing voting populate, people unsurprisingly gravitate to a political party that addresses their bottom line.. finances, and surviving life, it's not surprising that the NDP are a more relevant party to vote for.

Jack Layton is indeed the dark horse story in this election. His latent potential has surprised everyone, including the party themselves. In fact at least two NDP candidates were off on vacation while the campaign was on (previous bookings out of country) which still gives an impression that they did not really take it too seriously that their party would win. Layton has also leaped wildly ahead of the Bloc in Quebec, leaving Gilles Duceppe in the sovereignist dust. According to Ipsos polling, he's at 42% in Quebec compared to the Bloc's 26% (Apr. 29). So it looks like Layton has caused a wave.

Maybe if he had used sooner, his approach that rebutted the assumed and expected Liberal line that the NDP will never govern, and to also use "Prime Minister" and himself in the same sentence sooner, it may have began his surge sooner, hence a larger support at the ballot box.

On election eve, it's surprisingly close between the Conservatives and the Liberals no, the NDP. Ipsos Reid on Apr. 29 had them at 38% and 33%. While it's looking like Harper's Conservatives will again be taking the helm, a D-day-like mobilization by NDP supporters to get the vote to the polls could close the gap. As usual it will be interesting to see the final outcome on Monday night.

Night Scenes

A Quick first impression of the Leader's Debate

Overall it was quite lively (missed the first 15 mins of it on the screen). Like many things in life, it is not easy to find everything you want in the one package. There are good points about each leader, but they each highlighted each others' weak points. Here's what stood out to this observer:

They all presented well, showed crafty political and high level public speaking experience, though Liberal Michael Ignatieff was the rookie in the top office debate.

Harper has probably gotten more polished as appearing "Prime Ministerial", with his cool composure under exploding shrapnel from his opponents. In fact there was barely a time where he did not have a calm controlled smile or hint of one. Any observer can notice at least one key point about being polished and having good coaching, that is, no matter what criticism is levelled at you, you can always paint your answer in a positive way. It's more convincing when the speaker seems to be sincere as he smiles while delivering. Stephen Harper appears to have perfected that very well, not to mention, always looking at the camera, the Canadian audience, as he responded to questions from one of the other parties. In these ways, he did very well in the debate.

Both NDP Jack Layten, and Liberal Ignatieff made some great points, and some sharp shots at Prime Minister Harper, and each other. The Bloc party leader, Gilles Duceppe, did his role of slamming anything federal. Basically he could use his notes from the last two federal debates.

The debate from this armchair was great also, in that it helped to highlight the philosophical beliefs, and show where the politicians' emphasis was not. For example, it is clear that for NDP Layton, it is with healthcare, and promoting programs that emphasized more grass-roots social improvements. He gave an excellent example of some Native Indian communities who have to endure one home for up to three families, and how impoverished upbringings can affect poor health, education, and crime.

Ignatieff had just mentioned a similar stance, and a very important point about social roots, support, and the relationship between crime, poverty and adult outcome. His position emphasized an approach that would put in place programs, supports for people to develop themselves, to get involved in positive alternatives, like after-school programs, as opposed to nothing, and end up with more bullying. Ignatieff's attitude seems sensible - prevent future problems by supporting more education and needs to families and youth. It was also refreshing to hear him mention prevention in regards to health, and promote health education. This blogger could not agree more.

Harper did not criticize these specific points of view, but he did not emphasize the same important social issues with anywhere near the conviction of both Layton and Ignatieff. To be simplistic about the leaders, Harper definitely is more business, and economics. All Opposition leaders repeated his corporate tax breaks, putting friends in the Senate, giving billions to corporations. Harper did not waste time defending with any specifics, the accusations, instead he repeated how well Canada did economically during the recession - again making a positive out of a negative.

Layton, and perhaps Ignatieff even more, blasted the Prime Minister on as they name it, anti-democratic ways, and disrespect for Parliament. They do certainly cause listeners to question, again, 'what kind of guy is Harper'! If Canada's economy were in much worse shape Harper would have fewer trumps to deal with the coalition of opponents.

Each made good points, and delivered them strongly. From a philosophical point of view, during this particular debate, Ignatieff's attitude made sense because he attempted a couple of times to show a relationship between good social support and future outcomes. Layton's social emphasis was welcome and needed, yet more emphasis on economic realities would be welcome as well. Harper presented well, and made no errors. There were no knock-outs, and perhaps not a great deal of voter change overall.

If you watched or listened to it, what did you think?

How to Spice up the 2011 Leaders Debate

Tonight is the English language candidates debate of Election 2011, only the 4th election in 7 years. There does not appear to be a great deal of public interest due to a hazy reason for the election to be called in the first place. So here are a few suggestions that might get a wider viewing audience:

Have Shania Twain sing the national anthem.

Debate topic: What was the purpose, again, of calling this election?

Debate topic: Should we help Quebec seperate from Canada?

Go live to the Weather Network for 10 mins to get a cross-Canada temperature update.

Debate discussion: Other ways we could have wasted $300 million.

Have the Canadian Idol judges rate the party leaders as they imitate and sing, Bob Dylan songs half way through the debate.

Debate topic: What can Canadians do to help those less fortunate oil and gas companies, in this time of world crisis.. perhaps set up food banks, or have celebrities host pledge drives.. something must be done!

Call back the judges for the all Canadian "Ski-doo suit" contest.

Debate topic: What's the best source of Omega-3 oil? Seals or salmon?

Guest appearance by Charlie Sheen where he burns his shirt or has his girlfriends kiss each other, or whatever the man thinks will be a little outrageous.

Final comments by the Liberal, Conservative and NDP (and tell the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe that there is not enough time left for his comments).. just to irk him

Evening tides

Obama's Speech on U.S. Involvement in Libya

A U.S. President's speech to the nation is usually pretty interesting, and tonight's Obama delivery was 7.5/10 interesting. At a time when there looks like a potential prolonged involvement in protecting Libyan citizens/getting rid of Gadhafi, there's a great deal of pressure on him, and a surplus of criticisms. Tonight he gave an engaging and convincing address on the recent U.S. role in Libya.

First, a little perspective on the political situation abroad, and pressures on Obama.

In addition to Libya, there's been similar unrests, protests, government crackdowns and murders in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and other nations in that area of the world. Good questions are asked of the U.S., and NATO, like, why back the rebels in one country, while not offering help to others seeking escape from dictatorial rule. There does not appear to be an easy answer, or at least quick one. So the pressure was on Obama to outline why the U.S. led a NATO force to neuter the Libyan air force, what their future role would be, and how they might afford this.

Well, for this far east Canadian blogger, he spoke the prepared words very convincingly, and answered some questions rather clearly. Obama's critics often say that he should have sent in military help three or more weeks ago. However, he tells his audience and critics that the decision of the U.S. and NATO to act in Libya was made in 31 days as opposed to one year in the 1990s for a similar involvement in Bosnia. So it was relatively quick, and needed at least that time to coordinate with at least a dozen other nations.

He outlines the rationale for going in, emphasizing Gadhafi's violent rule and crackdown of his people. As well, he reminded listeners that the Arab League, and opposition leaders in Libya were the ones in the first place to ask for help there - sometimes those same nations seem to forget that. The question of how involved will the U.S. be, was approached in a way that to this observer, would be generally agreeable for the audience. Obama said that the U.S. has done what it set out to do, i.e., disable Libya's air capabilities (though he did allude to other military weapons that Libya use on the rebels), and that it would be a mistake to escalate the involvement, like the experience in Iraq. He said the Libyan people were the ones to change the regime there.

One more thing that had to resonate with citizens, was the mention of the economic drain another "Iraq" type war would have on the already recession-healing U.S. economy. He said that one had already cost $1 trillion.

While he did not mention the other specific troubled nations experiencing democratic protests, he said that there were ways that the U.S. could help. One can guess that it might also be in similar ways to treatment of Egypt's Mubarak, and Libya's Gadhafi.. freezing assets, and sanctions, jamming communications, but perhaps also a limited role in a NATO unit. However, the first question that might come to mind, is, how is this possible for all the other countries simultaneously? And. Should they even expect this? Is is fair to expect it?

Obama has been very careful to not be perceived by the Mid-East countries as their usual target, the devilish Western aggressor. He seems to be playing out the whole involvement in a wise way so far. Certainly, he seems to have learned some history lessens from Bush's Iraq experience also. But there are other reasons to be careful with his words, and actions. The rebels in 2011's North Africa rebellions, are who exactly? Are there more dangerous elements among them, like a certain more established group in Egypt, who might influence change, but have not had a positive or democratic image themselves?

At this juncture, the rebels in Libya appear to have made progress in their fight to oust their tyrannic leader, and have acknowledged the U.S. led NATO coalition has been a major factor to help them. So, they are not asking for outside soldiers on the battlefield. From this viewpoint, it appears to be a model for involvement in other area nations. That is, say that you are going to help protect citizens by destroying the dictator's air force, and tanks, but then leave it to the rebels to continue their quest, while still providing a patrolled no-fly zone, and other intelligence support.

On CNN's Piers Morgan show, three political guests gave their opinions on Obama's speech. They were: potential Republican presidential candidate and tv star billionaire, Donald Trump, Republican Bill Richardson, and New York Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Donald Trump knows how to make money, but unfortunately, he is also learning dirty politics. He has been critical of Obama's recession measures of multi-billion dollar spending to boost the injured economy. Yet, he takes this opportunity to criticize the President for not saying that the U.S. will get more involved to force out Gadhafi. So when it is convenient for him, saving the U.S. some money is his ammunition, but to score political points, spending money for deeper involvement, not to mention, lives on all sides, is ok for him?

Anthony Weiner was very impressive in his defence of Obama's stance and speech, and his correcting Trump on a couple of points, like mentioning that other countries make up NATO. He also countered Trump by suggesting that the U.S. needs to fix it's own economic problems rather than further dig a deeper hole. Weiner was quick, convincing and seemed to be generally more informed on political matters. Bill Richardson is very informed as well on global politics, and did not agree with Trump's point of view.

It has occurred to more than one observer to be sure, that why aren't the ones who asked for the U.S. and NATO involvement, getting much more involved themselves, and also paying for costs of this? It's a good point that Trump did make, and it was repeated by others. There are some very wealthy oil rich nations in the Arab League, and why don't they pay for this "service"?

Finally, just an observation about the host Piers Morgan - it's fine to be devil's advocate to guests, but please, do you really have to interrupt so often when the person is already attempting to give you a very good answer to your first question?! It is irritating to watch! Sometimes, it's a wonder they just don't walk off the set. Otherwise, the comments that were not interrupted, were useful points of view, and it will be interesting to see how the American public reacts to Obama's speech tonight.

Random winter shots of Newfoundland scenes

Ice Incentives

Krypton Ice?
Night falls
Ice night
Ripples on a pond

Charlie Sheen's challenging new role - reality

If multiple network interviews could be combined into a series, Charlie Sheen would have his own reality show. After all, he is the star, the main attraction being his own mental plot, the journey of a singular man who keeps so many guessing, "what will he say or do next?!"

One of the attractions for viewers, readers, and listeners is the passion, the emotion, the intensity that fronts the interior combustion so apparent in Sheen's colorful and often disturbing verbiage. One of those emotions is anger, directed at the show's ("Two and a Half Men") producer, and other network executives, or "trolls", or "maggots" as he happily recalled them. Often times anger is caused by frustration, or from a sense of injustice, hurt, or simply personal demons out of control that are out of sync with the values and behaviours of those around you.

He is obviously not frustrated by salary - at around $1.8 million per show. Hmm, if he is angry at that then perhaps he is crazy. But not likely one would think.

He has been a very successful actor, playing his scripted roles convincingly, especially himself on the 2½. So he has been a winning actor, one of his favorite adjectives. This raises other mysteries, like what exactly is a winner! Is he a winner as a parent, a positive cultural role model, as a level-headed individual?

This new reality show Sheen is inventing and performing in each day could be called "One Man" or "Two and a Half man, Too". The latter can be rationalized by the mixed messages that Sheen's 2½ personalities sends to the public. For instance, he's a winner he repeats, but a crack proponent "if you can handle it." He respects women and says that they should be cradled rather than hit, yet he admitted to physical abusing at least one of his women.

After all the mileage comedians get out of Charlie Sheen's antics and words, there is still in reality a sad situation. Now without a steady hit series, a couple of children, possible withdrawal symptoms from drug and alcohol addictions, he has to deal with real reality, and an expectation to entertain his followers either by acting a scripted role or maintaining an exterior persona of strength, success and being a "quite the character to watch" amid the inner turmoil mere humans would experience after traumatic and negative events in their lives.

As a human being and not an entertainer I hope Sheen can find peace with himself, find enjoyment without addiction to risky substances, and simply survive with his life.

Citi Leaks

This blog is exposing something that has been kept underground, that there are major infrastructure problems with old piping in the capital city. This will be a chronic source of expenditure and labour.


Not sure whether this happened of Water or Main St. but I took plenty of shots, and became dehydrated after leaving the scene.

Democratic Insomnia

It's hard to know where to begin with the unprecedented bravery of protesters in Arab nations. Since social networking sites, Facebook seems to be the main vehicle, have been so influential in what seemed to be rather spontaneous revolts, it is fitting to say that what started in Tunisia over a month ago, has definitely gone viral.

For millenniums Egyptians themselves have written history and built monuments that hold us captive when we see, and learn about them. Not only are the creations wonders of the world but a wonder as to why so many were employed/or enslaved for the mesmerizing constructions. Why is there such need for power!

Perhaps factors include tradition, socialization, social structure, ignorance, fear, false hope, a sense of helplessness, or what we presently could call a twisted sense of national success or power. The pyramids and sphinxes were built by tens of 1000s who were employed, and contrary to previous belief, slavery was not the large source of labour. In fact it could be said that many of the 6.4 million of today's Libyans are more slaves to the Ghadafi regime than any ruler previous.

As much as the pyraminds are monuments to what humans could do 1000s of year ago, the protests, bravery, sacrifice and peoples' attempts at freedom will be a great monument of achievement. At the present moment iron-fisted leader Ghadafi is desperately clinging to power at the expense of possibly 1000s of deaths, broken limbs and skulls. It is so far removed from our daily routines here. We have our crimes, but and impatient, rude drivers on the road, but it would be difficult to imagine protesting like a strike for example, and fearing being shot or beaten.

The events that are happening in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria, Jordan and other countries, are also part of a monumental shift in tolerance, attitude, courage, knowledge, and seeing what's possible. The people, the captive are again captivating the world and we are transfixed. Instead of the permanent symbolic reminders of Libya's megalomaniac, these images and icons are being deconstructed, stone by stone.

Courageous protesters are providing the drama for the surprising, shocking, historical chapter, which may blast another road to be taken for a democratic evolution.

There are a number of profound, life altering, progressive and revolutionary lessons that will resonate for an eternity for the Arab nations, and any nation that are unlucky enough to have dictators who viciously rule and enslave it's citizens.

For one, it is false to believe that a single charismatic personality needs to take the lead for change. In the case of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya at least, the leader of the peoples' protest is a what, the idea of freedom that is shared by millions of leading characters. This type of reality show is worthwhile.

Another lesson is that the genie is out the the ignorance bottle. In this globally connected world of shared knowledge and ideas, everyone can educate themselves about anything anywhere, and social networks have played a significant role in the viral wave of protests that seem to be rapidly contagious. Simultaneously, a trend that has been seen in many media formats is the doubt about so many ideas and institutions of society. The origins of the universe, who or what created it, is refreshed, but also doubts about truth, honesty from what's in foods, containers, prescriptions drugs, doctor prescribed treatments, banks, oil companies, etc. The trend of asking why or why not about many things we were socialized into can reach any internet reader.

Pertaining to the North Africa revolutions, people who know that democracy and freedom exists elsewhere, say, "Why not here?", or "We want that too!" For over 40 years, almost all Egyptians have known one ruler, and limited freedom, while many lived poorly as the country makes billions as the 4th largest oil producer in the world. 75% of its income comes from oil revenue.

Another lesson is that change is possible, and turning the world you know, upside-down, is possible and life will go on, but with hope for much more freedom and improvement in the long term. Peaceful protests can work, and it can help to shift the allegiance of the all important army to the peoples' side.

This is extremely crucial because without the killing power of the army, the dictator has no one, except imported mercenaries to try and enforce his continued tyranny.

Finally, there is a lesson for those who rule with an iron fist. Never take it for granted that your evil power will last. It's almost funny that two weeks ago, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmedinijad spouted that governments like Libra's should let the people protest in peace, when his inhumane regime violently ended that idea in his own country.

Though there is mounting pressure from the world for Ghadafi to leave or be removed, his public denial of atrocities and sociopathic slaughter of "his people" has prolonged the democratic struggle in Libya. It will make their citizen's plight much more difficult, but other nations can still be hopeful of change in their respective countries. Bahrain, and other monarchical, or single party, or theocratic countries have been put on alert, and their leaders will realize that life as they knew it, can change because of peoples' restless need for democracy.

Winter Seens III

Ahh, the freedom to do whatever you want. I think I'll do more of this. Winter seems harsh but not having freedom and democracy is harsher. More on this topic in the next blog posting. For now, just a few more captures of winter at Canada's most eastern 47th parallel.

Winter Seens II

So we certainly are getting doused with winter reality after our Dec. and Jan. free ride. Below are some captures of this reality.
Castaways
A winter's evening
Cool dip
Waiting for spring

Thanks to a medical hero, Dr. Ernest McCulloch

This Toronto co-discoverer of stem cells is not a household name like Dr. Jonas Salk was after 1955, when he introduced the polio vaccine. 50 years ago, McCulloch and research partner Dr. Jim Till, inadvertently discovered that stem cells exists. Their discovery has since led to treatments and cures for blood cancers like leukemia. In 1960, during the Cold War, they were asked to examine the effects nuclear radiation had on how bone marrow tissue made new blood cells. The non-radiated bone marrow had caused tiny lumps to grow in one group of mice, and it was attributed to the stem cells. Hence, a revolutionary new cancer treatment was conceived.

“They rigorously proved over the course of three or four years that the single cell that gave rise to the spleen colony bumps could self renew and could give rise to all the different types of mature blood cells,” (source: The healthzone.ca) ... "Their work in the 1960s also paved the way for bone marrow transplantation for cancer patients."

McCulloch wanted to cure leukemia, and his discovery has indeed led to many being cured from it, including this blogger. However, there is much more work to be done to improve survival rates, and reduction in graft versus host disease (gvhd), i.e., the acute and chronic side effect problems, that can be harsh. Stem cell or bone marrow transplants can save lives, allow some to lead normal lives, and cure cancer. However, transplants do not always work, because for one thing, the donor/patient match may not be compatible enough. At other times, they do work but do cause gvhd, which can be life changing.

My gratitude was given to my amazing donor, but now posthumously to Dr. McCulloch who passed away last week at the age of 85. McCulloch and Till's award winning and diligent research has given hope to many who face blood cancers.

You too can give hope and save a life, not just through being a blood donor, but being a stem cell donor. A blood test is taken and the specific (HLA) characteristics and matching criteria are recorded in a registry bank. There could well be a person who needs your exact blood match.

If interested please see the contact information below. You can find out more at the OneMatch Stem Cell and Marrow Network, Canada

Canadian Blood Services
1800 Alta Vista Drive
K1G 4J5 Ottawa, Ontario
Canada TEL: +1-613-739-2435

FAX: +1-613-739-2275

Email: cbs.onematch@blood.ca

Website:

Winter Seens

We're doing very well here on Canada's far East in terms of winter. In the capital city, just one major snowfall so far. Thus far, it seems we are immune to the havoc that winter is causing elsewhere in North America. Hmm, but then again, it is only Jan. 20, and there's a long way to go. There are obvious benefits to our mild winter, from safer driving conditions, to more outside walking, or golfing, opportunities, to the city's reduction in sodium, i.e., less salt use on roads, which means more savings for this old and largest outport. So before going outside for a Jan. walk around the lake, will post a few winter shots taken recently. As they say in Spanish Room on the Burin Peninsula, adios for now.

Birth of "this" universe

On ground Hubble Jr. was able to capture early clusters of exploding unstable stars, normally called red giants. Hubble was able to zoom to a young universe at just 4.5 million years old, when cosmic wind forces from the initial big bang created instability among emerging star formations. What we see are the remnants, the shattered dreams of potential shining stars, which still showed us the stuff they are made of. Yet despite their brevity, they left an impression from just an instance of life, that rekindles an appreciation for the value of short lives, to contribute to life's dreams, potential, beauty of life and nature.
(right: a hunter cluster seeking to amalgamate with a stable source of rich star matter)
(the aptly named "Christmas nebula" in it's glory during the season of lights)


(the "feeler" galaxy, sending out it's scouts for other strays in the still scurrying new universe)

(the feather nebula)


(the candy-striper former child star)

(the stealthy octo-nova about to prey on a restful blue ghost)

Who knows what we have yet to discover about the universe and ourselves - the sky's the limit.